tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN May 25, 2010 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
as marquette college by the first bishop of the archdiocese of wisconsin. it was named after an explorer. the highest priority of the newly established college was to provide an affordable catholic education to jerman settlers in the area. marquette university high school, formerly the preparatory department of the university, became a separate institution the same year. in 1909, marquette university became the first catholic university in the world to offer co-education as part of its regular undergraduate program. since that time, the role of women at marquette hachanged and expanded dramatically. in 1923, the first dean of women was appointed. in 1936, the first female academic dean at marquette provided leadership for the all-female college of nursing. by 1944, the enrollment of
women at marquette grew to more than 40% of students during world war ii. today, five of marquette's 12 deans are women. 17 of the key leaders are women. marquette's faculty is enriched by the presence of women. 42% of part-time faculty and 39% of full-time faculty in 2006, marquette's board elected the first female chair. today, the women make up more than 50% of the student body. with a student body of over 11,000, it's one of many jesuit universities and is credited by the north central association of colleges and secondary schools. the university has 11 schools and colleges, and in 2009 marquette ranked 34th overall
for national universities by the u.s. news and world report. i want to extend my congratulations to marquette president, reverend robert wilde, the faculty and staff on its 100th anniversary. they focus on the four core values of excellence, faith, leadership and service and honor them for 100 years of service of offering premiere higher education opportunities to all students who have a desire to learn. i ask my colleagues to support this resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the author of the resolution, the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. moore: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, today i am so proud and honored to be able to offer this resolution to my alma mater, marquette university, which, of course, is celebrating the 100th
anniversary of its submission to women in this academic year, 2009-2010. not only have we noted in this resolution that marquette was the first catholic university in the world to admit women to be educated alongside men in its undergraduate programs, but in doing so it paved the way for higher -- for women's access to higher education in the united states of america. this, of course, was very controversial. the admission of women in these programs and the objections among the religious communities in milwaukee and elsewhere was rampant. but father mccabe ok'd them
before he got word from rome the ok to do so. we applaud that legacy as well today. following the century, the role of womens have expanded and evolved -- women have expanded and evolved. not only is 50% ofhe population women, but the university offers a women's and genders study major and minor. marquette counts women among its student body leaders, the most outstanding students and its internationally recognized faculty and staff. in the decades llowing this historic inclusion of women, the university has become known for its commitment to expanding access to higher education, not only to women but also to low-income students, to veterans and to students who are the first generation in their families to attend
college. this year, marquette celebrates the 40th anniversary of its educational opportunity program of which i am among its first beneficiaries which now serves over 500 high school and college students every year. i am so proud of my alma mater and of milwaukee that say we are on the front lines of change and recognize along ago before many other similar institutions that in order to grow and move forward as a society we can't leave half our population behind. expanding opportunities and access to education for women benefits our families and our society. i am so honored to recognize marquette in this way. i congratulate marquette, its board of trustees, its student body, all of its alumni and urge passage of h.r. 1161, and
i would yield back to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. i associate my remarks with the gentlelady. i think it was an historic occasion. you're absolutely right. some would say more than 50% of the power -- women are left out. that was a big step for the catholic church in 1909. si agree th you, it did pave the way to the 19th amendment that occurred less than 10 years after that. so this is a pleasure to work with you on this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, as a proud graduate myself of the jesuit college, i urge my colleagues to pass this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time has expired. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass house resolution 1161. those in favor say aye.
those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. bishop: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the geleman from new york. mr. bishop: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1372. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1372, resolution honoring the university of georgia graduate school on the occasion of its centennial. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, and the gentleman from tennessee, mr. roe, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the
gentleman from new york, mr. bishop. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i request five legislative days during which members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on house resolution 1372 into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bishop: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of house resolution 1372, honoring the university of georgia graduate school on the occasion of its centennial. the university of georgia's motto, to teach, to serve and to inquire into the nature of things, has been guiding students at this outstanding institution for over 100 years. however, it was not until june of 1910 that the university of georgia formalized its graduation practi when it established its graduate school when students had the opportunity to continue their education. throughout these past 100 years, the graduate school has edicated itself to becoming a leading educional institution and an outstanding academic and scientific research center. while the graduate school
started off with a mere seven students in 1910, today there are more than 7,000 scholars in the program. the extraordinary and successful growth of the graduate school is a reflection of the great leadership of the first dean, william henry bocock, and today is represented by the current dean. they continue to offer its students to more than 350 fields of studying including fellowships for students across colleges and schools at the university, financial opportunities for these is and disowe take writings, academic writings and professional development seminars. mr. speaker, once again i express my support for house resolution 1372, and i congratulate the graduate school and the- and dean grasso. i wish the college continued
success. i ask my colleagues to support this measure. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of house resolution 1372, honoring the university of georgia graduate school on the occasion of its centennial. the university of georgia organized its graduate practices into a collegiate program on june 10, 1910. the graduate education practices were organized under the guidance of professor willis henry bocock. he became the first dean of the graduate school. in 1910, seven students enrolled in the graduate school. today, the school has grown to include more than 7,000 students in more than 350 fields of study. the graduate school was awarded more -- has awarded more than 73,000 degrees since its founding. these students and alumni and faculty that have guided these individuals have made
significant contributions to the success and growth of the university of georgia and furthermore the nation. the university of georgia, or u.g.a., was founded 125 years before the graduate school was organized. located in athens, georgia, the university of georgia is the oldest and largest of the states institution of higher education. the university serves almost 35,000 students and compromises -- and comprises 16,000 colleges and schools, including the graduate schools. the university aims to teach, to serve and to inquire into the things of nature. this motto has helped to position the university as a leader in higher education. u.s. news and world report ranked the university 21st in 2010. in addition, the university has claimed 37 national championships and is widely known for excellence in academics and athletics. the university of georgia graduate school has significantly contributed to the university's success and
excellence in the last 100 years. i stand today to congratulate the university of georgia graduate school, students, alumni, faculty and staff on the occasion of the school's centennial. i ask my colleagues to support this resolution. mr. speaker, as a university of tennessee grad, i was doing really well of this until we got to the 37 national championships. i yield back the balance of my time -- excuse me -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. roe: i ask five men's to the distinguished colleague from georgia, dr. paul broun. the speaker pro tempore: how many minutes? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the university of georgia is the first land grant college in the united states. a lot of people don't know that. the graduate school at the university of georgia is celebrating its centennial in
june, as both speakers just mentioned. in the 100 years the university of georgia's graduate school has produced scholars at the highest -- of the highest caliber beginning with only seven people and now boosts more than 7,000 students and hundreds of doctorial, masters and specialist degree programs. at the center of advanced learninat the state's flagship university, u.g.a.'s graduate school has contributed to new knowledge, advancements in academic research and the economic development of georgia and the united states. graduates of this great school occupy positions in school systems, businesses and even the united states congress. i'm honored to represent this great institution here in the u.s. congress, and i urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating the graduate school on this great occasion of its
centennial. the university of georgia is a great institution for the people in the state of georgia and this nation. the graduate school has come within the purview of that great institution and it's been a stellar school to produce some of the greatest leaders of our nation. and i congratulate them personally and i'm glad that congress hopefully is going to congratulate them with this resolution. and with that i have one thing to say, go, dogs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: dr. roe, do you have any additional speakers? mr. roe: i do not and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro temporethe gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i yield back as well. the speaker pro tempore: all time has expired. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to
house resolution 1372. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative -- >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the rules are suspended. the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i objecto the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> good afternoon, mr. speaker. i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 407, as amended.
the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 407. resolution expressing support for designation of may as national asthma and allergy awareness month. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor, and the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor. ms. castor: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask annapolis consent tha all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ord. ms. castor: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. castor: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of house resolution 407. this resolution expresses support for the designation of the month of may as national asthma and allergy awareness month and i would like to thank
my colleague, congressman reichert, who partnered with me on this resolution. congressman reichert and i co-chair the congressional children's health care caucus. today's resolution focuses on two conditions that affect millions of americans, asthma and allergy. asthma is a respiratory disease that is caud when the lungs become inflamed and constricted. asthma attacks can be so severe they are life threatening. an estimated 20 million americans currently have asthma, and it is the most chronic condition in children. asthma accounts for nearly two million emergency room visits per year and costs america about $18 billion annually. more than 12.8 million school days are loseach year due to asthma. approximately eight days for each student with asthma. this makes it very difficult for parents who may miss work because their child is home from school after an asthma flare up.
there is no cure for asthma. almost 4,000 people die each yearrom asthma-related conditions. the best course of action is to manage the disease by preventing symptoms and treating attacks when they occur. improved care and management has the potential to not only save live bus also reduce the number of people suffering asthma attacks so they don't miss work and -- or have to visit the emergency room or hospital. our resolution also underscores the disparities in asthma based on race, ethnicity and sose yo economic status. -- socioeconomic status. it is important to work to improve asthma-related outcomes for all americans, but especial already for those disproportionately affected by the disease. mr. speaker, the resolution also focuses on allergy. this is a reaction of the
immune system when a person comes in contact with certain substances that trigger reaction. likes a mark allergy is a common disease among americans. approximately 50 million americans suffer from allergies. approximately three million school-age children have a food allergy and the prevalence of allergies has increased across all age, sex, and racial groups in the last deck casmede symptoms of allergy also vary and we all understand this very well this time of year. the symptoms of -- can be rather mild or for some people very severe, hives and swelling of the throat, allergic reactions can be severe enough to cause death. it's important to consider the impacts of allergy as an individual condition. we must also not overlook the connection between allergy and asthma. over 50% of asthma cases are triggered by allergens.
today's resolution gives us an opportunity to learn more about asthma and allergy and the impact of these conditions upon american families. it encourages local communities to raise awareness surrounding these diseases. the resolution also recognizes andalutes the important work of health professionals who treat asthma and allergy related health issues. finally the resolution recognizes and affirms the nation's commitment to education surrounding the care for these two conditions. i urge my colleagues to sport this resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. terry: on behalf of the republican side of the energy and commerce committee, i rise in support of h. resolution
407, to support the designation of may as asthma and allergy aware n month -- awareness month. about 50 million americans suffer from allergies and around 20 million suffer from asthma. of those 20 million asthma sufferers, over half have both allergies and asthma. while it's rare, allergies and asthma attacks can be deadly. but even a more mild attack can keep a child home from school or a parent out of work. while allergies and asthma are often chronic conditions, they can be managed with medication, inhalers, for instance, allow people with asthma to participate in sports, and a wide range of medications are available to those who suffer from allergies. my nephew raymond played baseball all through his youth, strog carry his inhaler. many of us rely on common,
everyday, over-the-counter medications to deal with allergies. unfortunately, the health care bill will increase the cost of drugs to americans because they will no longer get the benefit of untaxed dollars through their f.s.a.'s to purchase over-the-counter drugs for conditions like allergies. the actual cost to americans for these medications will therefore increase, forcing home to go to prescription drug levels and increasing the cost to health care. additionally the majority's health care bill will increase the cost, or create a direct tax, on inhalers and breathing devices. now, some might try to say that the savings really wasn't that great and the benefit of this massive trillion-dollar government scheme will far outweigh the cost, but the fact is that americans who suffer from chronic allergies and asthma have to purchase medications on a regular basis. over time, savings from an f.s.a. can add up.
it's kind of like how massive deficits year after year, we do a $13 trillion deficit. there may be some benefit to someone at some point in time from the president's health care bill, but in the meantime, all the american people are getting is higher costs. i support this resolution, and urge members to vote for it. however, i'm opposed to some of the policies implemented by this congress that would increase the cost of treatment for those with allergies and asthma. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. castor: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close for my side but i believe i have the right to close. i ask my if my colleague -- mr. terry: i have one more speaker. ms. castor: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. mr. terry: i yield the gentleman from california three minutes.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. herger: i rise in support of this resolution, however, i find it interesting we are discussing the hardships faced by those with allergies and asthma when just over two months ago, the democrats ram through the a health care law that will prohibit americans from using pretax dollars to buy over-the-counter allergy medications and impose harsh new taxes on prescription drugs used in asthma inhalers. beginning next year, the democrats' health care overhaul will prohibit the 45 million americans with flexible spending arrangements and health savings accounts from using this money to purchase over-the-counter drugs like claritin or zyrtec this amounts to a $5 billion tax increase.
those with asthma will soon see their out of pocket costs increase because the democrats health overhaul imposes a $27 billion tax on drug manufacturers, including tse who make inhalation drugs. mr. speaker, that's nothing to sneeze about. the medicare actuaries expect this, quote, tax would generally be passed through to help consumers in the form of -- to health consumers in the form of higher drug prices, close quote. mr. speaker, it's time to repeal the democrats' health law and replace it with common sense reforms that actually lor health care costs, not raise them. mr. terry: i have no further speakers, therefore, i yield
back our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from florida. mr. castor: i'd like to thank my colleague from the energy and commerce committee, mr. terry, for his participation today. we're not going to repeal the health care reform law. it's too important to american families. we are going to make it work. and we're all in this together. to make it work. and if you have asthma, or if you have an allergy, the new health reform bill is very positive for you and your family because now, no longer will health insurance companies be ableo deny coverage based upon a prexisting condition. if your child has severe case of asthma, that health insurance company can no long e cover that. mr. terry: will the gentlelady yields? henry waxman said differently in our che.
ms. castor: i will not yield. the new law is good for people with asthma and alger is -- allergies because no longer will insurance companies be able to can sell -- cancel your health care coverage, under our law, if you come down with asthma or allergies, you will not be table -- your insurance company will not be able to cancel your coverage. more good news, there are many students in college these days that before they reach age 26, they were often left in the lurch. now under the health reform law, we say that health insurance companies have to keep your kids on your pal policy until they turn age 26. there are plenty of young students today that are having a little -- having a tough time
finding a job and this is an important lifeline for them. i think we should also focus on our medicare patients. because sometimes, a condition like asthma gets a lot -- a whole lot worse as someone ages. the good news under the health reform law is that medicare patients will get free checkups and preventive care system of hopefully, if a chronic condition is developing, we can prevent it if they go in and not have to worry about co-payments anymore that are expensive if you're on a fixed income and you can get coverage you need, checkups and preventive care, whether it's asthma, allergies, or some other serious condition. i think it's probably going to help medicare patients as well because some of them are spending a lot of money on their pharmaceuticals and drugs. so if you need those inhalers now, and you're falling into the doughnut hole because you're spending a lot, we're going to be able to help you out for those senior that are
falling into that doughnut hole, mean tharge spending a lot on their drugs whether it's asma, allergies, or some other medication that they need. i'm sorry this really -- no, i'm not sorry that it turned into a debate on health care. we are not going to repeal it. we're going to work together. those are the values we share in america. we're going to make health reform work for american families. all of us. we're in this together, we don't need to waste time on repeal, we're going to dedicate ourselves, all of us, to making it work for american families. so mr. speaker, i would also like to urge my colleagues to support our designation of may as asthma and allergy awareness month and ask that we now, before i yield back the balance of my time, i will object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair will advise the gentlewoman, she'll have to repeat that again. but first, does she yield back the balance of my time -- of her time? ms. castor: i urge my colleagues to support the resolution and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time has expired. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 407 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to -- cassondra boston mr. speaker, thank you -- ms. castor: mr. speaker, thank you. i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. pursuant to section 106
without objection to the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. kirkpatrick of michigan for today and mr. petri for today and wednesday, may 26, 2010. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the requests are granted.
gentleman from texas rise? mr. conaway: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conaway: the next couple of days the house is scheduled to vote on the american jobs closing tax loopholes act. the bill fails to address the largest loophole of all, the double spending loophole. last week it was reported th the majority plans to fund a new summer jobs program with revenue from a tax increase on each barrel ooil. the revenue has been promised to the oil spill liability trust fund to cover the $14 billion in damages on our gulf coast. you don't need to be a c.p.a. that you can't spend the same dollar twice. the majority is spending revenue that has been committed to other programs. it is using this as long and imflames the trust of the american people.
we ought to be closing the double spending loophole. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? m moran: address the house for one minute. the speak pro tempore: without objection. mr. moran: the federal government has failed when it comes to immigration. it's no surprise that arizona is stepping forward to do the job the federal government has not done. our country is a nation of laws and they must be enforced. whether this administration likes it, it is a federal crime not to carry status documents in the united states. if they would read it, administration officials would know that arizona's new law gives local law enforcement the authority to enforce our laws by making a state crime. despite the misinformation and criticism, 72 residents of arizona who live with this problem every day support the new law. but it is not just them fed up. many residents of kansas share their concern. it is the responsibility of the
president to defend its people. president obama should stand with the american people who are demanding the federal government address this problem and secure our border. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> on the 16th, the house pages played two games with the senate pages. the senate pages lucked up and won a frbee match with probably some cheating. but the house pages standing strong following all the rules, doing the right thing defeated the senate pages badly 10-4 in kickball.
and as the senate pages with their heads dropped and their spirits torn left the field, they reported to the senate only one part of that day, which was the game they lucked up and won. so, madam speaker, i want to commend the athletic pages of the house of representatives and hope that we can continue to get superior pages as we have this year in the future. congratulations to the pages. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests for one-minute speeches? for wh purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: ask unanimous consent to address the house, revise and extends. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: madam spker, "the washington post" company is trying to say "newsweek" -- sell "newsweek" because the magazine
is losing money. in response, the weekly standard wrote, quote, not only has "newsweek" suffered from its online competition, it seems to have done everything within its power to hasten its own demise. during the 2008 presidential election, for example, its coverage of barack obama made it a journalistic laughingstock and certainly affirmed every accusation of liberal bias in the mainstream media, end quote. the standard wrote that "newsweek's" recent overhaul was, quote, designed to create a left wing journal of opinion, enduote. the american spectator called "newsweek" the canary in the liberal coal mine and outlined the magazine's history of liberal bias. maybe "newsweek's" bias reporting didn't cause its down fall, but it certainly didn't help. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas re?
mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business, the following members may be permitted to address this house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mrs. miller today for five minutes, dr. burgess for today, mr. moran for may 27, 28 and 29. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. hastings: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders hetofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, revise and extends their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. hastings of florida for five minutes, ms. woolsey of california for five minutes, ms. baldwin of wisconsin for five minutes, mr. mcdermott of washington for five minutes, ms. kaptur of ohio for five minutes and mr. defazio of oregon for five minutes.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe of texas. mr. poe: request permission to addre the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: madam speaker, the recent explosion of the b.p. deep water horizon oil rig in the gulf of mexico has raised legitimate concerns about safety and environmental standards of deep water offshore drilling. my thoughts and prayers go out to the families that lost the loved ones in this tragic accident. 11 individuals were killed. safety and responsible operating procedures must always come first, particularly when human lives are at risk. it's important to reevaluate and address our safety procedures and hold those responsible for the accident accountable. at the same time, i believe the federal government has the obligation to make inform and
responsible decisions regarding offshore drilling. we have to differentiate between the causes of this accident and other responsible and safe drilling operations. our primary purpose right now should not be to stop -- should be to stop the leak and determine the cause of this tragedy. and the federal government needs to simultaneously address the cleanup. we need the full cooperation from federal, state and local agencies as well as private industry to immediately address the cleanup and containment situation in the gulf of mexico. in my opinion, there has not been sufficient urgency to do this thus far. cleanup remains inadequate and is still bogged down in red tape from federal bureaucrats. this bureaucratic response from the interior sack salazar has been to shut down all permits including shallow water and deep water offshore drilling. however, shallow water drill something fundamentally different from deep water driling. it is operated safely in the
gulf of mexico for over 60 years, yet this prohibition treats both the same. this drilling in shallow waters is primarily for natural gas. the oil remaining in these reservoirs has largely been produced so at lowest pressures so it is at lower pressure than the oil found at deeper depths. and unlike deep water drilling, the blowout preventers in shallow water drilling are located above the service, not thousands of feet below on the ocean floor. i recently joined our congressional neighbor in louisiana, congressman charlie boustany, and 40 other additional colleagues in sending a bipartisan letter urging secretary salazar to resume permitting for the shallow water drilling. the unintended consequences of this wide range ban are far reaching. the blankest ban has a potential to cause more widespread economic damage in the gulf coast and the entire united states. the devastating effects of the oil spill go beyond waters and wetlands. for southeast texas, and
southwestern louisiana, our lives are intertwined with the oil and gas industry in the gulf of mexico. over 180,000 americans directly are employed in the oil and gas and mining industries along the gulf coast. and the prospect for severe economic hardship is very real. and that doesn't include the countless people that make their living in fishing and restaurant and tourism-represented -- related industries. many of these out of work fishermen stand ready to help with the cleanup but are denied the ability to help because it is stalled down in federal red tape. i think we should have an all-of-the-above energy policy and one that i believe we can be -- can achieve with the highest safety and environmental standards. and our nation and our economy, however, runs on fuel supplied by the oil producing sector of the gulf of mexico. we cannot simply shut off the spiget and expect this nation to run on nothing. meanwhile we need to clone up the mess and find out what caud this tragedy in the gulf of mexico. and that's just the way it is. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: mr. hastings of florida. mr. hastings: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today with a heavy heart because of the loss of a very good friend of mine, judge edward davis of the southern district of florida. he passed this morning. my love and condolences go out to pat and the rest of the family for this tragic loss. i shall speak more at another time about my dear good friend. additionally, madam speaker, while we are sick and tired of hearing people pontificate about this ecosystem of apopick tick proportions, there are questions that need to be raised not only for the entirety of the oil industry b certainly for the united states government in this particular case.
i'd like the questions answered and i'm proposing by way of a letter what steps are being taken to determine how much oil is underwater, where it is located and what path will it take over the next decade? what do we project of the threat to be from a potential hurricane in the gulf of mexico and how is our government planning for the potential impacts of such a possibility? what are the potential long-term impts if the oil flume stays in its location and/or begins moving through the loop current and gulf stream to various coastal locations? why have we not used our tanker that can suck in oil and water and pump out oil? why have we not asked russia or norway or china or japan to use their submersibles in a meaningful way? interagency coordination is required.
i happen to like that and i think he's one of the better commanders that the coast guard has ever had and i think he's doing an incredible job trying it to coordinate. but what does the federal government response structure look like and what agencies are in charge, is what i would ask him and anyone else involved. what steps are being taken to coordinate long-term observation, impact analysis, mitigation response and research that is needed, not b.p.'s research, but our research? we have an institution, noaa. they have modeling efforts to improve hurricane intensity forecasting and a sufficient amount of information that could be beneficial and i'm sure many are using it. what's the government's plan to improve security at these oil facilities? nothing has been really said to us here in the congress directly regarding that. but now, madam speaker, i want to turn to my colleagues on the other side for the remainder of
my time. earlier today i spoke on the house floor regarding the republican latest employ to stall the important work of this body known as youcut, which i like to call cutyou. each week a targeted pool of online and cell phone users are supposed to vote for one of five programs that they'd like to see cut from the budget. simply put, youcut can and probably does undercut our representational responsibilities which leads to undercutting our democracy. once we saw it getting into the business of government by referendum, we negate representation. ask my friends in california and ask those of us in florida what impact that kind of activity has had on our representatives. the last me i checked, and last week there were 280,000 votes, and that doesn't
constitute the will of the american people and that's what brings me to the floor, very occasionally democrats and republicans get on the floor and say what the american people want. what the american people know is that we represent them. and therefore when we stand up and say that 280,000 people voted a certain way or 81,000 of them voted to cut much-needed funding from the temporary aid to needy families program, that does not represent the majority of americans. quite frankly, i think how this idea got started is they need to rebrand themselves and i don't fault them for that and they're particularly good at messaging and i don't fault them for that. the simple fact of the matter is, that somewhere along the line, somebody decided, let's use us a mechanism to gather in these emails, let's use us a mechanism to get these phone numbers and then what do we do at campaign time? we turn it back around and go at them to make them intense and
enthusiastic and that's what people can or do. so i have no equals with that. i have no equals with their new program, what's it called? it's getting ready to be unfolded next tuesday on their website, it's called america speaking out. well, the last time i looked at my office, america has spoken out an awful lot. i don't know that we see -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hastings: i don't know that we need too much more undercutting and the poor in this country sure don't need an uppercut. the speaker pro tempore: mr. jones from north carolina. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to claim the unexpired time of the gentleman from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate my opportunity of following my good friend from florida in his wonderful address to the house. i wish to talk about one particular issue. there was a newspaper article
that came out today that said that president obama is scheduled to send 1,200 troops to the arizona-mexico border. if indeed that report is accurate, i commend him for that type of activity. because his goal is to try and stop three of the most heinous organizations that are entering this country through public lands on the southern border. illegal drug traffickers, illegal human traffickers and all the violence, especially against women, that they present, and the potential terrorists coming to those areas. the escalating violence on our southern boarder is of unprecedented proportion. unfortunately the success of stabilizing that border is not in the number of bodies that we send down there. but the ability of those bodies to have full access to the border regions. unfortunately the land manager policies that we have on our southern borders allow criminal element unfettered access but prohibit the border patrol from going into those exact same areas.
the traffic barriers that are put up in this picture on federal lands in the south are not border barricades to stop illegals coming in from mexico, drug cartels, human traffickers. they're to stop the border patrol from going into federal lands on our southern border. and the end result of this activity, of all these drug traffickers, the human traffickers, coming in is the massive amount of environmental damage that is done. if i could give a quote from a 2007 article in "the tucson weekly" dealing with ironwood national monument. talking about these smugglers that are coming in and their vehicles, mostly stolen from phoenix, often travel at night without headlightsworks tape over the brake lights. they've been clocked through the monuments, dirt roads at 80 miles per hour, endangering people's lives. any of ever of these road vehicles make it out of the monument for they smash into trees, run into ditches. they've toed 300 vehicles a year out of this one monument since
the year 2000. these motor vehicles, as well as the constant foot traffic, destroy habitat, threaten cultural sites and endangered species. the trash that is left behind, this is from ironwood, requires pickup crews to have biohazard training and armed guards watching theas they do the work. recently they've even attacked the cack tie in the area. simply cutting it down, leaving it there across roads to create a barrier so they can stop park visitors and there either rob them or steal their autos at the same time. this also destroys the natural environment, happens to be there. this is not just taking place in the south, i want to emphasize, though. it is also taking place in the north. although 40% of the land on our southern border between california and el paso is owned by the federal government, we have the same situation on our northern borders. there are thousand miles of land, 13 states intersect, 12
national parks, four indian reservations and the exact same problem exists on our northern border in a letter to house republicans, secretary napolitano talked about border patrol issues in the spow can sector up in washington. she wrote, the sector is currently working with interior and forest service regarding endangered species act issues related to grizzly bears and road us agents in vehicles on some roads are detrimental to bears. the sector, however, must occasionally have some motorized presence in those areas and the related and important issue is retaining access to critical areas. the sector must maintain the ability to respond via a motor vehicle when required. . the guy who was charged to bomb new york city in 1997 crossed our border into washington. and there was a tunnel found
from canada toashington. this illustrates how much effort smugglersre attempting to come into our country not just in the south but also in the north. we had a hearing where some people said, well if there are circumstances -- obviously, we make allowances for the border patrol to go in there. the problem is the definition of that term. interior defines that term as life and death situation. homeland security defines it as when there is evidence of a crossing. those definitions are in conflict. until the department of interior and natiol park service rules are changed in both the north and south along our borders and allow access to federal border patrol and federal employees, there's no amount of numbers that's going to make a difference. instead we have the worst of both worlds on both borders. thank you, madam speaker.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. woolsey of california. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin rise? >> i sk unanimous consent to claim congresswoman woolsey's tie. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. baldwin: our hearts go out to victims of recent floods and natural disasters but i also fear that we suffer from the old addage, out of sight, out of mind. once the cameras are packed away and the news crews leave, what happens to the victims and survivors of our natural disasters? one would hope that the system of emergency response would keep on plugging away in assisting the families in need of assistance across this country. but sometimes, unfortunately that system breaks down. madam speaker, i rise today to bring the voices of my constituents in jefferson
county, wisconsin, to the floor of the people's house. in 2008, homes along the northern shore of a lake and the surrounding community were devastated by a record-setting flood. this was a 500-year flood that ravaged much of the midwest and in particular, wisconsin and iowa. during that storm, i kn that the damage was going to be devastating. and that many of the houses in our community would be beyond repair. but i didn't know after nearly two years after the floods, our government would be leaving those hard-working americans behind. you see, in february of this year, fema instituted what it calls immediate needs funding. basically, they are freezing already approved funds to folks
in wisconsin and in other disaster areas across the country. a couple of weekends ago, i had the chance to visit with the property owners who were affected from the district that i have the privilege of representing. survivors of the 2008 floods. i wanted to hear their stories. many brought photos, letters and all brought unique stories and anger and frustration. i met first with jim and marie harris at their home on lamp road, one of the most extensively damaged neighborhoods in this flood. the damage was so extensive that their house is absolutely inhabitable and has been since the flood. they showed me photos of before, during and after and we talked about the tangle of bureaucratic red tape that they have waded through in order to get approved for fema money, but they were
approved for fema money until the freeze took effect. when i asked them to recall what they went through back in june of 2008, not surprisingly, she welled up with tears. i met with other families affected, a family who had four generations who lived in this property that is also beyond repair. he talked about the generations having put their heart and soul into remodeling. i met with a young family who had several properties in the area. this young family with two young sons decided that in order to plan for their retirement, rather than investing in a 401-k, they were going to buy a few bungalows along the lake shore and rent them out and this
would help them out. so they bought five. three out of the five were damaged in the flood beyond repair. the remaining two are irreparble. but what's happening as they wait for these frozen funds is this family is having to pull out of their kids' college funds and money they were saving for their retirement in order to pay mortgages, taxes on properties that are uninhabitable and which they are getting no rental income. they wrote me a letter which asks, why freeze the funding now? we have been waiting two years and during this time we must stay pay taxes, mortgages and mow what is left oour lawns. how much longer are we expected to keep paying and waiting with no more source of rental income? please, somebody wake me up from
this nightmare and tell me it's all a bad joke. our government couldn't do something as unfair and cruel as this, could they? do they think about the people whose lives they are destroying? i know there are people who are lot worse than us and suffering even more, but at least, at least we have have another home to live in right now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. baldwin: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton from indiana. mr. moran from kansas. mr. mcdermott from washington. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, as we approach the passage of the jobs for america bill in the next few days, we need to talk
about a subject that is at the heart of the debate, hypocrisy. the definition of a hypocrite is somebody who acts in contradistinction to a stated belief. a hypocrite would deplore our nation's deficit in a floor speech today even after helping president bush turn the bigge budget surplus in our nation's history into the biggest deficit ever. the hypocrite would vote for two wars with the price tag of over $1 trillion, two tax cuts for the wealthy and a new entitlement program all without ever thinking about how to pay one thin dime of their costs and then turn around and say they voted to cut off unemployment benefits out of concern for the budget deficit. that's what people will argue in the next couple of days. a hypocrite would complain that
there are not enough budget offsets, that is pay-fors in the jobs bill before us, whi at the same time, trying to eliminate the over $50 billion in offsets that are contained in the legislation. closing loopholes is against the philosophy of a hypocrite. i think it's safe to say that all of us have not lived up to every present nounsment we have made in our lives but rarely has hypocrisy is blatantly displayed as it has been of the opponents of this bill, the same people, the same people who spent like drunken sailors when they were in charge now say we can't afford to help our fellow citizens who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. here is the bottom line. if we don't pass this bill, 1.2
million americans who are following the rules and work inand paying their taxes will loe their unemployment benefits by the end of june. moving forward, a total of two million will be off by mid-july and five million americans will lose their benefits by the end of this year, thanks to the hypocrites who say, i can't. i'm worried about the deficit. i can't worry about these people who have no way to pay for their home or their food or their mortgage or their children children. americans will face these cuts of their unemployment benefits because people will not follow what they say they believe. they were unable to deal with the spending on wars and tax cuts and all the rest, but when it comes time to pay the benefits to somebody who lost
their job, their message to them is, well, you know, tell your children they're just going to have to tighten their belts a little and not going to have three meals today but only have two because your mom, dad or both haven't been able to find work. there are people in this country looking for every job out there. the chances of people getting a job today are very low and people are giving up because with eight million js lost in the last two years, they are simply unable to find work to take their of their families. no to take away their last lifeline because you are saying you are being a budget hawk and you're against deficits when you spent like that in the last eight years is pure and unadulter ated hypocrisy. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. diaz-balart of florida. mr. defazio of oregon. ms. ros-lehtinen of florida. ms. miller of michigan. mr. burgess of texas. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee othe minority leader. mr. broun: thank you, madam speaker. tonight, the doctors' caucus, people who are physicians and those of us who are involved in health care on the republican side are going to be talking a little bit tonight about
obamacare. we have talked about obamacare a lot over the last several months and it's now law. we hear over and over again about how obamacare is beginning to filter out and how it's going to affect the american people. our president has said, madam speaker, when the american people know what's in the bill, they're going to like it. well, to the contrary. as the american people get to know what's in the bill, they dislike it more and mor as they rightfully should. because the obamacare is going to be extremely expensive for everyone. it's going to be very onerous to almost everyone except to the federal bureaucrats who are going to be hired to put obamacare in place and who are going to be enforcing it and in
fact, we're going to have to hire 16,500 new i.r.s. agents to enforce it. that's right, madam speaker. 16,500 new i.r.s. agents just to enforce obamacare on small businessmen and women around this country. the more the american people discover about obamacare, the less they like it. we just heard, i think it was last week where the congressional budget office says, oops, we made a mistake. we were $115 billion too little on our estimate, which puts it way over $1 trillion. our democratic colleagues, their leadership -- actually it's not all the democrats because there are many who are reasonable on that side. but the leadership of the
democratic caucus wanted to get obamacare and the president wanted to get obamacare passed and force the c.b.o. through the parameters that they gave them to try to get the numbers below $1 trillion. and frankly, if you look at medicare when c.b.o. projected the cost of medicare, c.b.o. missed it, missed it terribly. in fact, i think that's what's going to happen here, too. i think obamacare is going to be $3 trillion, $5 trillion, $10 trillion and it's money that our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay because we don't have the money. in fact, we just had a lecture about hypocrisy by one of our coleagues a moment ago, talking about saying one thing and believing another.
frankly, we're continuing to fight, to stop this outrageous spending. as republicans here, we're fighting against obamacare. every single republican voted against it. even several democrats, many democrats voted against it. the only bipartisan vote was a vote of no against obamacare because it's going to be terrible. unfortunately, it passed the house by five votes. five votes. that's certainly not a mandate from the house. the american people, as they study the bl, they're beginning more and more to see how bad it is. the feelings against obamacare have been described by one democratic pollster as hardening. hardening against it. we need to repeal and are replace obamacare. it's the only rational, reasonable thing to do. it's the only economically feasible thing to do.
now we see colleagues on the other side talk about budget deficits. they don't care about budget deficits. they don't care about the huge debt that's created. just last week, i was down here on the floor and heard several of our democratic colleagues blame this economic woe that we have in this huge federal debt and deficit on george bush. can you imagine? on george bush. we've created more debt in the last year and a half than george bush did in eight years. but my democratic colleagues continue to blame george bush. i blame george bush for bringing the first trounce of the tarp bill. i voted against it. many republicans voted against it. i thought it was a mistake. then the president me back, our current president, president obama, came back and wanted another $350 billion-plus, to bail out wall
street even more. now they're talking about a financial services bill to regulate wall street. that they, the democrats' leadership in this house and the president, want to il them out and then regulate them on the other hand. if you look, if e american people will look at who wall street gives money to, it's the democrats. they give the democrats and the democratic party a whole lot more money than they give republicans. the best friends of big business, and the best friends of wall street, are our democratic colleagues. so we're here tonight to talk about spending and failed promises. i'm joined in thi discussion tonight by two very good friends two eat members of the house, bolt are freshmen, both -- both are freshmen, both are physicians. dr. fill rowe is an ob/gyn from johnson city and my fellow
family doctor, dr. john fleming, from shreveport, louisiana, joining us tonight. i understand dr. phil gingrey may join us, he's in a markup, so is dr. burgess, in markups on energy and commerce. but now we've got three stellar members of this u.s. house of representatives. three stellar members of the republican caucus. three stellar members of the doctors caucus, who have been leaders here. i want to thank the people of tennessee and louisiana for sending these two gentleman here -- gentlemen here and being part of our conference and being part of this conference. fighting for the interest of their constituents. and i want to thank the people of louisiana, madam speaker, and thank the people of tennessee for sending dr. phil roe and dr. john fleming here. we'll kick this off, i'll go to dr. roe to put in his input about failed promises and huge
spending that obamacare, as well as the democrats, not only with obamacare and their stimulus bill, dr. roe, we're fixing to have another bill that our democratic colleagues are calling the jobs bill if they like the firstonstimulus bill, actually, it stimulated big government, it's been an abject failure, but they want to give us another bill they call it the extenders bill here in congress, but the american people will hear it described as the jobs bill. that is absolutely incorrect. mr. roe: thank you, dr. broun. i bring with me tonight a blank sheet of paper. this blank sheet of paper is where we ought to go back to health care and start over. that's what the people in my district in the state of tennessee have overwhelmingly told me. i was at a convention in gatlinburg this weekend. they understand it, let me tell you who gets it the most, are
our senior citizens. when i came here, i came as a 31-year practiced physician, private practice, also taught in medical school some and run a small business and i also was a mayor of a city, the largest city in our district. i'm used to balancing budgets, not raising taxes. i do believe in smaller, more efficient government. by far and away, after seeing this, i call it the twilight zone here, no one understands in the state of tennessee or the cities where i go to in kingsport, bristol, gatlinburg and all the cities in my district, rogersville, they have to balance the budget. the county mayors have to balance the budgets, the city mayor the local city commissioners. one of the things i've paid close attention to since i've been here, i try not to vote and i think i haven't voted for
any unfunded mandates. i had that when i had the ozen and everything else as a mayor to deal with. mr. broun: the american people understand what you're having to say about balancing budgets because they have to do that every day in their own home and businesses. my state of of georgia has to balance its budget. our state government does. many states around this country have to balance their budgets. you had to balance the budget of the city when you were mayor of johnson city. we don't even have a budget. first time in history. since the last budget act was passed. we're not even going to attempt, not even attempt to have a budget. how can they constrain your spending? i guess they don't have any constraints or any -- anything to try to hold them accountable. so the american people, i think, dr. roe, need to know we're not going to have a
budget. they're not going to have a budget, we're not going to have a budget in this congress. john spratt, the chairman of the budget committee, said, if you can't budget, you can't govern. the majority leader said that putting forth budget is critical for governing. they're not governing. they're not budgeting. i wanted to kick that in so that our listeners tonight could understand, they don't have a budget, so they're not working under the constraints of a balanced budget. i've introduced a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. there are three, actually, on our side, that have been introduced. all slightly different, but all call for a balanced budget. we on the republican side want to balance our budget. i yield back to dr. roe. mr. roe: i i think until we do that,, you see this fiscal irresponsibility around the world. you've seen the greece meltdown, spain is in trouble,
italy is in trouble, the e.u. is having problems even being held together because of the spending in social programs that's going to be -- going to have to be paid for. i ask myself today, how long can you continue to run enormous 43% this year of our budget is deficit spending. how long can you continue to run the dollars you spend, you can't do that any more and a crisis hits. what i was going bring up is i came up here with high ideals d high thoughts about health care. i had spent my career doing that. i said, you know, i think i can go to washington and have something to offer in the debate. what disappointed me was we had 10 doctors on the republican side in the doctors' caucus. not one of us in a meaningful way was consulted about this health care bill. mr. broun: not one doctor on our side. not one. mr. roe: it's the most
astonishing thing i have heard of, that you would have the expertise here, i know people think this is all politics and games and so forth. i came here very sincerely wanting to be part of this debate and offer 30-plus years experience about what worked and what didn't work. the thing that this bill has, of it is what we had already f tried in our state that failed miserably. i wanted to explain what went wrong so we wouldn't magnify this debate 50 times across america. when we came here, when i came here, i recognized that problems were ever-rising costs, number one. number two, we had a lot of uninsured people who needed health care services in this country. you've dealt with them, dr. fleming has dealt with them, i've dealt with that problem. and pre-existing conditions. we had a way, very easily to deal with those, without a massive 2,500-plus page bill
that almost nobody read. it's frustrating to me to see no physicians involved, no malpractice reform, no doctor fix so the folks understand what we're talking about, our physicians are going to be -- that accept medicare and many, now, hundreds have left in texas, i was reading an article the other day, won't take medicare anymore. why? because for years now, we have been putting off a proposed cut and this year, next week, there's going to be a 21% cut in your doctor's pay for medicare. the problem with that is, when you do that, that's going to do three things. it's going to decrease access to your doctor, it's going to decrease the quality of care because you can't get to your dr. number three, it's going to increase the cost to patients when they can least afford it. we on our side, the physicians caucus, -- caucus, have been
asked for a true doctors fix. not the stuff that's going to be voted on tomorrow where 13 years for -- three years from now, where doctors debt a 36-month reprieve and you're facing the same thing again instead of a true fix for this very, very real problem. we had those three things. it didn't take a trillion-dollar -- you can't spend $1 trillion without helping some people. when people ask, is there anything in this bill you like? well if you spend $1 trillion, you're going to help some people. you could have done the same thing with less money and i think the most important thing, this, i can write the prescription no pun intended, i can write the prescription for what's going to happen. you've set up a scenario where
the private sector will fall apart and then the politicians here on this house floor will step up once again and say, oh, see, we told you this wasn't going to work. here's this the -- here's the government, we'll take the whole thing over. when that happens, my friends, rationing of care is going to occur. there's no doubt in my mind it will occur. you brought up a minute ago about, dr. broun, about the cost and government estimates of medicare. i know those numbers. in 1965, medicare cost $3 billion. the estimate 25 years later was going to be $15 billion. the actual number in 1990 was $90 tpwhasme missed it by a factor of six. that's how much they missed it by. in tenncare in tennessee, we brought forth this managed care plan, uninsured, costs going up, the same argument i just made and guess what, in 10 budget year, we tripled our costs. just in 10 years.
from 2010 to 2020, it'll triple, so it will be a $3 trillion program new york city a $1 trillion program. and that will probably be on the low side. i think the other thing about this particular plan, we'll get into it more detail in a moment, what folks don't understand about the difference between medicare and medicaid, medicare you pay a premium in for that. you paid 2.9% of your salary, either as employee or employer. there's a premium. it may not be the right number to fund it properly, but you are paying into that. medicaid is a flat out entitlement. it comes out of the general fund taxpayer dollars to pay for it. and we're going to expand that by some 20 million people. we've seen the problem in tennessee when you do that, when you don't put the patient in control of their own health ca expenses, they'll explode like they did in tennessee. i yield back. . mr. broun: thank you. i appreciate it. and you're exactly right.
in the state of georgia. they just finished their 40-day session, general assembly. 40 days, 40 legislative days all the way to y to finish 40 legislative days and it's because of the economic downturn and we have a balanced budget requirement on our state constitution. so georgia has to balance its budget just like people have to balance its budget just like we should be balancing our budget here in the federal government. and in doing so, people who are paid by the state, teachers, policemen, state highway patrol is an example, just talked to the police chief at the university of georgia as a person who is employed by the
state, all these folks are being furloughed. think are being furloughed on a day-by-day basis, so they have to lose a day of work, maybe a day of month. a day periodically. they're not counted in these unemployment statistics. they're not counted in how the department of labor gives us all those numbers on a monthly basis. so our administration and the leadership up here don't count the furlough days. but they are unpaid furlough days. it's hurting their salary, it's hurting families and it's because of this gross mismanagement of the federal spending, the gross outrageous spending that the federal government is doing that it's going to put our children and
grandchildren in the economic squeeze where their standard of living is not going to be as high as ours and obamacare is going to put a lot of people in the position where you were just saying where they can't find a doctor. in fact, during another previous doctors' caucus period of time of discussing things in special orders, i said that people may have have a free health care card, medicaid card or whatever card it is, but it will be as worthless as the confederate dollar was after the r between the states. and you just brought up doctors aren't going to be able to accept medice and medicaid because of the rationing of care, the marked reduction of their payments from the federal government and doctors who are trying to take care of poor people and the elderly are struggling because the federal government pays providers
whether it's a hospital, doctor or physical they are pivot less money -- therapist less money today than it costs them to provide that service. in my own practice when i was in an office, i have done house calls since 2002, so i would go see my patients at home. when i was in office space, medicaid reimbursed us for shots, immunizations for our kids at less money than it cost for us just to buy the film. and that doesn't count the cost of our nurses' time and liket costs and medical records costs and the syringe and all those sorts of things. the government was reimbursing us at a lower level. so i was sending my patients over to the health department
and getting them from a government entity because i could not provide those services. but that comes back to another thing you said, dr. roe, where just before obamacare was passed, our president said he wanted everybody in this country in one pool, one health care pool. what does that mean to the american people? what that means is that his desire is for us to have total socialized medicine where everybody in the same pool, everybody's health care is controlled by the federal government and there are panels here in washington, d.c. that are going to ration care. who can go in the hospital, who can get a treatment, what medications can we get. a tremendous rationing of care. before that happens, dr. roe, you are exactly right in that this unfunded mandate being
forced on the states byhe medicaid roles is going to hurt my state of georgia that much more. hey are struggling to balance the budget. and people are being released from their duties d not going to be rehired for the next school year because the state of georgia doesn't have the money to pay for medicaid today. and it's going to be expanded and we are going to fire all the teachers? i hope not. we ought to be paying our teachers more. we ought to be doing more for our teachers. but we are in a bind. and the federal government, under this administration, the leadership of the house and senate are making matters worse and worse. dr. roe. mr. roe: if we don't get our budget in order, our deficitsn order, and this budget deficit that you see out into the next six to eight years that they predicted is without health care. and it adds on top of that -- i don't see howcan afford it
and go forward as a nation. and i'm truly concerned about that for the people who are retired, on fixed incomes, young entrepreneurs. look at what a business would do right now. let's say a business looks up and this obamacare plan, they can pay a fine, that's $2,000 per employee and they can put them on the exchange, which is not even calculated into these numbers, this $1 trillion. there's a business in tennessee, i won't say where, that using the government will again decide what's adequate health insurance coverage. not you as an individual. the government will decide if your plans adequate. and if it is not adequate, then you'll have to buy an adequate plan. well, this particular company's plan wouldn't be considered adequate. it would cost them $40 million to comply with this. or they could drop the folks in their business into the
exchange, pay $2,000 fine and have a net $40 million savings. so what are they going to do? they're going to drop those people into a plan that will not pay the cost of the care and will amplify much faster. you will have people step up real soon and say, we told you that the private sector failed. no, businesses are making a perfectly logical business decision. mr. broun: just tonight, i went to a meeting just before we came down for these last series of votes. i came from that meeting here to the floor of the house and i was talking to a leader in a large transportation organization and he told me thatthey have studied obamacare and they've decided that they're going to do exactly what you said, that they're going to push all of their employees into the public exchange and just going to pay
the $2,000. just an hour and a half ago, he said that hundreds of their employees will be pushed into the public exchange. this goes back to fulfill barack obama's promise of wanting to try to develop one pool for everybody. but he has failed in his promises because we were assured that the new law would be the answer to health care financing problems. au contraire. i'm not good speaking french. my wife often times chastises me not be being able to speak these things. she's from indiana and doesn't think iven speak english. but we see over and over again where these failed promises and
this increased debt and all the things that are going on are costing hundreds of jobs and are going to force people into the government-sponsored health insurance program. this outrageous spending has to stop here. and unfortunately, we have failed promises by the federal government. dr. roe has had to leave. and i thank him for spending time with us and the american people. thank you, dr. roe. our next doctor, a good friend, great member of congress, dr. john fleming, family doctor from the northwest corner of louisiana. one of my favorite states. i love to go down there and go duck hunting and they are struggling to deal with this
outrageous economic as well as environmental disaster that's going on down there. our federal government and this administration is failing to take care of what they are charged to do under if i had law. our good friend from new orleans came to the floor yesterday and was talking about that. and even chastised by one of our democratic colleagues. but the federal government has the responsibility under federal law on these major oil spills to get engaged in trying to deal with that. they fail to do so. but thankfully, your district is up in the northwest corner and i know your patients miss you. i'm still practicing medicine. but dr. fleming, i yield to you, sir. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman from georgia, dr.
broun, and i still see patients when i get a chance but not nearly as often i would like. we being both family physicians, i think we have a special bond. and i want to thank the gentleman for his leadership and certainly has been a mentor for me and also a special family practice that we understand, not just for your patients but for the work you do here and not least of which is for this republic, that i know you love so much. and that i greatly respect. what i wanted to extend a little bit from our discussion that we're already into is the fact that, you know, we have had a number of these g.o.p. doctors' caucus special orders ding the health care debate. and tonight, we know the bill is passed. there's nothing we can say tonight that will keep it from being passed.
the votes have been counted and it is in law, although it has not been fully implemented. mr. broun: let me interrupt you and reclaim my time. i want to ask you a question, have you heard any of our democratic colleagues that we need to move on, we need to accept it and we just need to go forward and it's the law of the land and we are being sore losers? being nothing but sore heads. we are talking about health care still but it's critical that the american people understand that it's not put in place completely and the most onerous parts of ohm baugha care and we can -- obamacare and we can repeal it. i have introduced one bill, h.r. 3889, prior to obamacare
passing, which was my own comprehensive health care bill. dealt with medicare, so people could continue to get medicare and get their money back through their fica taxes and through their payroll deductions and stuff like that. and re-introduced as repeal obamacare and this week i'm going to introduce ianother one, repeals obamacare, across state lines for individuals and businesses. anybody in this country can join an association, $25 to join an association and have multiple insurance products and own themselves, have huge pools with these associations. third thing is to encourage the states to have high-risk pools and tax fairness for everybody
so everybody can deduct every health care costs they have, including purchasing insurance. makes sense. i have had many of my democratic colleagues when i challenged them before obamacare passed, i challenged them to introduce those four things in a bill and i would give them the legislative language. i would give them the bill. just write their name in the blank and there would be a democratic bill and they could claim that as being obamacare because it's not my name being on anything but i'm concerned about policy. they said, paul, i would love to do it. it makes sense. my democratic colleagues said it makes sense and work on this incrementally. many democrats wanted to work on this but their leadership didn't want them to. they were forced to swallow
obamacare like many americans are forced to swallow obamacare. and those four things would radically change the health care financing. would solve a lot of problems, not all of them, but a lot of problems we have and cover a lot of people who can't afford health insurance today, would cover a lot of people who can't get health insurancbecause of pre-existing conditions. we have very few people. in fact, obamacare isn't going to cover everybody in this country until we get everybody in the same pool. but these are all failed promises and high spending we are getting from our leadership. i just wanted to throw that in, dr. fleming, and i yield back. mr. fleming: what i'd like to do is take a moment to look through the retrospective-scope, look at -- mr. broun: a lot of people
haven't heard of that retrospective-scope, you better explain that mr. fleming: it's equivalent to harm chair quarterbacking or a postmortem when we going how do things look now, looking back, as opposed to how things looked then. what we were saying in the debate is this -- this bill is by no means paid for. there are smoke and mirrors about the financing, it will definitely cause taxes for the middle class, though the president said otherwise. the pd said the premms would go down for insurance. we said they would go up. the president said people would get more care and better care and we said, no, the care would be diluted, there would be less access to care. mr. broun: let me interrupt you again for a second, if you
don't mind, dr. fleming. i have some news for the american people. the congressional budget office, even missing all the numbers as dr. roe and i were talking about, the congressional budget office stated that the law will raise the individual market premiums by an average of $2,100 per family. raise them. they're going to go up above what would have been if we did nothing. i don't want to do nothing. i know that you don't want to do nothing. you made that very clear in many hours here on the floor talking. but the cost is going to go up by $2,100 per family on average across this country. that's another failed promise by speaker pelosi and barack obama. i yield back. mr. fleming: there were a number of promises made and each time we try to rebut these, we were to we were using scare tactics.
we're scaring old people and it was unconscionable to do that. so what has happened since th bill has passed? first of all, the bill had about 52% of americans against it, against 38% who were for it. today, 63% of americans want repeal system of that means that more people now want to get rid of this billhan actually were against it before. that means that some people who were for it now want to repeal it. what was the first thing we heard after it passed? almost within 24 hours, at&t, a writedown of $1 billion a loss of $1 billion for the year. verizon, $970 million. john deere, $150 million, caterpillar, $150 million. we had communications just the other day a small business owner, who thought he was going to be ok under obamacare because he had 24 employees and said you know, the threshold is
25 employees, so you get special tax credits and you get support under this program because your small business owner that has fewer employees. mr. broun: say that again so people can understand. we just saw a report, i don't know if you saw the report, we haven't talked about it, but there was a report just recently where businesses that were going to hire new employees, right on the cusp, had decided not to hire those new employees. it's killing jobs, right? mr. fleming: what's happening, the employers, now that they're getting the language of the bill, remember that speaker pelosi sd if we yao want to find out what's in it, we've got to pass it first. now it's passed. so now we're -- business owners are putting a pencil to it. here's what they're finding. this is a gentleman who said, you know, i've got 24 employees, so i should be under the threshold and i should actually get some subsidies and tax credits.
but what he found out was that the way it's calculated, he would have to draw down his 24 employees down to 10 and he would have to cut wages down to $25,000 a year. fine print. the gentleman's name is zack hoffman. so that -- he has to go from 24 employees making an average of $35,000 a year down to 10 employees making $25,000. $35,000 versus $25,000 a year, in order to make that happen. that's not all. remember, what i'm telling you, this is not me telling you this, i'm just paing on the bad news. whime telling you is what people are finding out. the president's chief actuary, this is in the president's administration, soon after the bill was passed, said, you know what? we made a miscalculation on this that's from c.m.s. that this is going to cost $311
billion more than what was anticipated. and it will consume 21% of gross domestic product instead of the 16% we predicted. this was in days of it passing. then also, the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, which we know play along with the smoke and mirrors and slight of hand financing of this, says, oh, my goodness, there's $115 billion that we haven't accounted for. so instead of this thing being revenue neutral or maybe a little bit on the plus side, , it's going to go in the red, just like we were saying all along. mr. broun: that's another failed promise, dr. flemming. we were told the cost curve would go down that may be a nebulous term to most people in this country, some of that congressional speak language we talk about up here. we heard over and over again, from our democratic colleagues, particularly in leadership, that the cost curve would go down. in other words, the spend this
etotal level of spending in this country on health care, would go down with obamacare. but what you're just saying is great information so that the american people can understand and hopefully our democratic colleagues will understand, the cost curve goes up, higher than if we did nothing. and in fact, this new estimate does not include any costs for the 52 new programs. 52 new programs. in the bill. that the c.b.o. could not even measure and give us a figure for on the cost because each program was authorized for such sums, blank check, such sums funding level. so our leadership, ms. pelosi and company, have given us 52 new programs that are funded at such sums that they need, and
it's not even -- it's not accounted in this new estimate of $150 million that c.b.o. missed. couldn't even score that. mr. fleming: if the gentleman would yield, it goes further than that. there's going to be $120 billion in taxes that were not anticipated, on top of the $600 billion that we're we know about. additional tax from the actuary, job cuts. 90% of medical device makers say that they will eliminate jobs. that's nine out of 10 companies that make anything from blades to pacemakers, what have you, as a result of the taxation, heavy taxation, excise taxation of medical devices. mr. broun: let me interject here. one of our constituents in northeast georgia in my 10th
congressional district, wrote us a note saying that he's a small businessman. he said that his small business was going to survive this economic downturn. but the way it's going to survive was, he's going to let all his employees go and he's going to run -- he and his family will run the small business. that's the only way to stay in bays. obamacare is running his employees, even a very small business, where they're going to have to let employees go because of obamacare. right now, today, dr. fleming. mr. fleming: you have costs going up, jobs going down. we know there's supposed to be 32 million americans more covered under this than otherwise. half of those are estimated to go into medicaid and doctors across the country are dropping medicaid and so where are these people going to end up? ha they'll end up in emergency rooms, not in doctors' offices
like was anticipated. let me get to something that i think is real important because you remember that we brought up the idea that there would be committees that may make a decision about what kind of treatment you may or may not get. now, we know that they exist in canada and in the united kingdom, but we started talking about these, i know that sarah palin, governor palin made mention of these and the left blew apart. they said, you're talking about death boards. shame on you. for scaring the american people. ok, let me tell you what's really happening. this is being reported now. the president has nominated dr. donald dulwik to run the centers for medicare and medicaid services at c.m.s. his job is to oversee c.m.s. he's also supposed to oversee the $2.5 billion comparative
effectiveness research. mr. broun spock those are big words. what does that mean? mr. fleming: what it basically means is there's going to be a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, perhaps not even doctors, who are going to be tasked with looking at research, hopefully there's going to be research, or they're going to do research to decide what treatments and what diagnostic tests are worth paying for and which ones are not. mr. broun: we talk about comparative effectiveness of different treatments. for instance, a buddy at home, a retired counselor, who served -- stellar service in the united states air force. retired. randy dudley has just undergone a series of treatments for prostate cancer. he's been very open about it, that's the reason i can bring that forward here tonight. hipaa otherwise wouldn't let me
do so. colonel dudley looked at surgery, looked at high dose radiation therapy, low-dose radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or a combination of those, as he chose his treatment. we as physicians do comparative effectiveness evaluation or research to look and see whether the surgery for him is better or with which of those treatments or combination of treatments are better. but this comparative effectiveness research that was started with a nonstimulus bill, back a little over a year ago, that's when nancy pelosi and company funded the comparative effectiveness research. what the american people need to understand, dr. flemming, it's up -- dr. fleming, it's up to you and i, it's not what's the best treatment but how to spend dollars. they're going to use age as the means to try to determine how
to spend dollars that means that one of my patients who is 75 that has diabetes versus another one of my patients that's 35 with diabetes, they're going to decide whether they're going to spend $100 on my 75-year-old diabetic patient or $75 -- or $100 on my 35-year-old diabetic patient. dr. roe was talking about seniors are very upset because we know where that decision is going to be and that federal bureaucrat who is not a doctor that panel, that's not going to be run by physicians, are going to be deciding the comparative effectiveness of spending dollars on an age-related basis with more dollar, less dollars being divided by more people, which means rationing of care and this panel is going to deny -- deny -- treatment to that 75-year-old. that's the reason governor palin was talking about death panels.
they're going to just say, so sorry, you can't get that treatment because comparative effectiveness says that spend $100 on you, a 75-year-old patient with diabetes, is not effective as spending $100 on the 35-year-old, and our senior citizens will be denied treatment. what's going to happen? they'll get gangrene in their legs and die from that, they'll get pneumonia and die from that. this panel is not going to put them to death. but it's going to deny treatment. particularly the more expensive treatmt. mr. fleming: will the gentleman yield? let me focus on dr. bulwik, specifically. s that quote from him. -- this is a quote from him. . broun: this is the head of c.m.s., heading up the comparative effectiveness rationing panel. mr. fleming: yes.
he considers the british health system, quote a global treasure. it's my understanding, i don't have it in my data right here, but my understanding he help dead sine it. it was designed simply to be a little more technical than what you were deciding. what they do is take the population, and they assign a value, a numerical value, based on quality adjusted life years. and so just as you say, let's say you have -- let's say the government can afford 1,000 hip replacement dwhreers because of the budget and you've got someone 75, with diabetes and someone 35, who is fully healthy. football player. according to the quality value, quality adjusted life year the 35-year-old has not only more years to live left but more productive years that is, he's going to work for the state more years, in fact, the 75-year-old is probably not
going to work any more years. so they have to draw the line someplace, which 1,000 is going to get the hip replacement this year? it's going to be the 35-year-old. . to be the 35-year-old. and that's how the comparative effectiveness system works. that's the way they do it in england today. and anybody who has doubts about that's where we're headed, read about all the information that's coming out on this. and again, there's much reported by the "wall streetournal." it says the decision is not whether or not we will ration care, the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. and right now, we are doing it blindly. it goes on and on to describe the fact if the quality effectiveness research board is not, in essence, a death panel, then i don't know what really
is, because just in the case with the gentleman with the prostate cancer, that's a decision between him and his doctor, whether or not he gets chemo, surgery or maybe he decides his cancer has advanced too far and go home and take pain medication and not fight it. that's their decision. but this is going to make it the government's decision to do that and if you doubt that that happens, again, go and talk to people from the united kingdom and from canada. it happens all the time. it's acceptable in those countries and those cultures that if the government says you don't get treatment or you get only treatment when there is a cure, then that is strictly the way it is, and as far as i know, there's no right to petition. there's no court or anything you
can go to. so what we really have, just to summarize my comments here, is we have a number of promises by the president. he said the cost curve would go down. he said the middle class would pay increased taxes. he said the premiums would go down. and he said a number of other things. he scoffed at the idea of death panels and any kind of board or bureaucrat that would dictate what your care would be like and the bureaucracy wouldn't come between you and your physician. and this would be a boom for businesses. now that the bill is in law, we have businesses not hiring people because the unemployment rate at 9.9% and holding because businesses know if they hire people, they are going to have to pay a lot of money going
forward and we see that in play and we will have a comparative effectiveness board just like that in the united kingdom. mr. broun: reclaiming my time. just today, just today, a consulting firm of towers, watson released a study of large employers across the country, what their response is to obamacare. and we have been talking about it. you and i and many of our doctors' caucus members have been on the floor talking about these things. we have done it for months and months before obamacare was put into place. but let me give you the data just released today. the overwhelming majority, 90% of employees believe that it will increase their organization's health care costs. they're right. i don't know why it's not 100%. but 90% of employers believe the
health care costs will go up. 68% plan to re-examine their health benefit strategy for their employees this year. i'll tell you something, there was an article from the university of georgia, where they are considering not giving any new hire at the university of georgia puts on their payroll. retirement benefits once they retire or health care retirement benefits because of the costs, because of obamacare, because of the strain on the budget that university of georgia is suffering from right now. so i know university of georgia and a lot of people in athens, georgia, want to go to work for the university of georgia, great place to work, i'm a graduate of the university of georgia, but 68% are going to re-examine
their health benefits strategy. that is going to please our president because he wants everybody to off of private insurance. he said that himself. he didn't say it in those words. he said he wants everyone in the government pool, one pool. 88% plan to pass the costs from the law on to their employees through high premiums. those people working today, those middle-class people that barack obama said it wouldn't affect them. we heard over and over, 95% of americans aren't going to see an increase in taxes, that is totally false. nothing but falsehoods. but 88% plan to pass on the increased costs to employers. and let me give you a couple more examples. 74% plan to pass the higher
costs on to their employees by changing their plan options and restricting eligibility and more people won't be eligible to get insurance through their employers or increasing their deductibles or co-pays. one out of 10 firms will reduce employment. 12% say they're going to do that. 12%. reducing employee contributions to their retirement plans like 401-can's. 43% believe their plans will be subject to the cadillac tax on high-cost plans. our leadership here in the house and our president wants to get rid of cadillac plans unless they're for the unions. in fact, they have given the unions a pass on the cadillac plans because they want the unions to do everything they can do to support the unions.
and those firms offering coverage, 43% said that they are likely to eliminate or reduce retiree medical programs as a result of the law's enactment. university of georgia is a good example that is considering right now very seriously and i expect it probably will happen, almost half of the companies in this country are going to reduce or eliminate their retirees' health care plans. i yield back to the doctor. mr. fleming: if if you would yield to a comment about employers. i'm a small business owner and you as a medical physician and one who has to run a business, in essence, for health care, i think a lot of people out there may feel safe in the fact that, you know, my employers are
taking care of if they have stepped up and done the right thing. but what people have to understand is if an employer is paying these high premiums and their competitor is not paying those high premiums or reduces the number of employees, then your employer is no longer competitive in the marketplace and he either has to do the same thing or he goes out of business. so it's not like you could take comfort in the fact that, well, my employer always does the right thing. he steps up and buys us insurance. this is a whole new paradigm. because he is going to be competing and if his costs are higher, he will go out of business. and i yield back. mr. broun: we have a couple of minutes left and maybe i'll get back to you in a second, but i want to tell, madam speaker and the american people that republicans have been charged by democratic colleagues and i have
heard many democratic colleagues come, stand back there at the speaker's desk and say that the republican party is the party of no. we are the party of k-n-o-w. we know how, we know how to reduce the cost of health care for everybody in this country. we know how to solve the problems of insuring those people who are unsnurble today because of pre-existing conditions. we know how to maintain the doctor-patient relationship. obamacare doesn't do that. that is another failed promise and another myth that our president and nancy pelosi and company have given to the american people. president obama said over and over again, if you like your insurance, you can keep it. and dr. fleming has said, no,
you can't. that is another myth, a failed promise. but the republicans are the party of k-n-o-w, because we know how to do those things. we know how to create jobs. we have been asking over and over again, where are the jobs? the american people are hurting. we see the statistics, 9.9%, but that's not correct. it's much higher than that. as an example, one of my county commissioner chairmen told me, their unemployment statistics is down to 10.7%. i said that is fantastic, where are the jobs? he said, paul, there aren't any jobs. people have fallen off the roll. we have mentioned where teachers and policemen and other people are being furloughed and not being paid for the furloughed days and there are millions of people being unemployed and those people who are employed
and getting jobs, the few out there, are being employed at a lower level than they are really qualified. the unemployed, the underemployment, those off the rolls, it's higher than 10%. maybe 20%. maybe above 25%. but the republicans do have alternatives and we're going to try our best to repeal obamacare and replace it with things that make sense that will build jobs, build a stronger economy. we have to see in the next few days here on the floor of the house, a bill that they're going to call the jobs bill and that's not correct. they naming anything jobs bills these days, but jobs are being killed by this outrageous spending. the health care quality in this country is going to go down. the american people deserve better and we're going to try to repeal and put in place something that makes sense economically and good for the
american people. i yield back. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy january 6, 2009, the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. tonko: we're going to use the time made available to us in the majority to speak this evening about contracts and about choices, about change in the direction that this nation is pursuing. it is important for us, i believe, madam speaker, to talk about the changed order of policy, the new direction, the opportunities that we believe are essential if we're going to grow this economy after having witnessed what many would suggest is the worst financial crisis since the great depression. and so it took aur